A credible prosecutrix’s testimony alone can sustain a rape conviction without corroboration.

The appellant, Nand Ram, was convicted under Section 376 IPC by the District and Sessions Judge, Bareilly, in Sessions Trial No. 190 of 1982 and sentenced to five years’ rigorous imprisonment.

The prosecution alleged that on 7 November 1981, at approximately 6:00 p.m., the appellant took the approximately nine-year-old victim to a nearby paddy field, removed the string of her salwar, and forcibly committed rape upon her while her younger sister raised an alarm.

The FIR was lodged by the victim’s father on 8 November 1981 at approximately 1:30 p.m.; the delay was attributed to darkness, the late return of the father, and the Kailash River lying on the route to the police station.

The victim’s medical examination disclosed torn, red, swollen and bleeding hymenal edges and a 3–4 mm tear in the fourchette; the medical and radiological evidence placed her age at approximately 11 years.

The victim supported the prosecution case as PW-2, while her younger sister, PW-5, also supported it but admitted in cross-examination that she had been instructed by her father and police regarding parts of her testimony.

PW-4, an alleged eyewitness, turned hostile.

The appellant denied the allegations and pleaded false implication arising from village and land-related enmity.

1. Whether the delay in lodging the FIR undermined the prosecution case or was satisfactorily explained by the circumstances stated by the victim’s father.

2. Whether the testimony of the minor victim, despite her age and the alleged tutoring of the child witness, was sufficiently reliable to sustain conviction.

3. Whether the medical and radiological evidence corroborated the victim’s allegation of forcible sexual assault.

4. Whether the minor discrepancy concerning the appellant having “opened” or “broken” the salwar string materially affected the prosecution case.

5. Whether the conviction and five-year sentence under Section 376 IPC required interference in appeal.

The court applied Section 376 IPC governing the offence of rape, together with Sections 3, 118 and 133 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.

It held that a prosecutrix is not an accomplice but a victim of sexual assault; her credible testimony may, by itself, sustain conviction without mandatory corroboration, although corroborative material may be sought where the court requires assurance, relying on Mohd. Imran Khan v. State (NCT of Delhi), State of Maharashtra v. Chandraprakash Kewalchand Jain, State of U.P. v. Pappu, Vijay v. State of Madhya Pradesh and State of U.P. v. Chhotey Lal.

The court further applied the principle that an FIR need not contain every detail and that a satisfactorily explained delay in reporting sexual offences is not fatal, relying on Animireddy Venkata Ramana v. Public Prosecutor and Vishwasnathan v. State of Tamil Nadu.

Minor discrepancies that do not affect the core prosecution narrative are to be disregarded, while credible portions of evidence may be separated from unreliable portions, following Mani @ Udattu Mani v. State of Tamil Nadu and State of Haryana v. Chandvir.

The court also reiterated that proof beyond reasonable doubt does not mean proof beyond every conceivable doubt.

The court found the FIR delay reasonably explained by the father’s late return, the onset of darkness and the intervening river, and therefore rejected the suggestion that the delay indicated fabrication.

It treated the discrepancy between “opened” and “broke” the salwar string as a minor variation incapable of affecting the substance of the allegation.

The victim’s testimony was considered direct, consistent on the material particulars, and sufficient to identify the appellant and describe the assault.

Although the younger sister’s evidence disclosed tutoring and was therefore vulnerable, the court held that this did not destroy the victim’s independent testimony; unreliable portions could be disregarded while retaining the credible core.

The medical evidence showed recent hymenal and fourchette injuries consistent with penetration, and the radiological evidence confirmed the victim’s minority; the court treated these circumstances as corroborative of the victim’s account, notwithstanding the doctor’s qualification that she could not give a definitive medical opinion of rape and that no spermatozoa were detected.

The hostility of PW-4 was held not to be fatal because conviction could rest on the reliable testimony of the prosecutrix, supported by the surrounding medical evidence.

The defence plea of false implication due to land or village enmity was found unsubstantiated.

It held that the FIR delay was satisfactorily explained, the discrepancies were immaterial, the victim’s testimony was reliable, and the medical evidence provided corroborative support.

The conviction under Section 376 IPC and the sentence of five years’ rigorous imprisonment imposed by the trial court were affirmed.

The criminal appeal was dismissed; the appellant, who was on bail, was directed to surrender forthwith to serve the remaining sentence, with cancellation of his bail bonds and discharge of the sureties.